Comments on: Gay leaders angry over inaugural invocation by Rick Warren

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:23:11 +0000

@Jayhuck,
your justifications for gay marriage can be made for open marriage and polygamy as well a adult-child marriage…and for easy divorce.
Using your rationale, I could say, “traditionalists will not go away, so you may as well give into their assertions…”
Not going away or acceding an existing standard just because it is there would undermine the argument for gay marriage 20 years ago.
Change is incremental…whether you are for gay marriage or against it….whether you are for easy divorce or against it.
Your beliefs and passions are real, your logic, faulty.

By: Lynn David

Lynn David — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:31:31 +0000

Ann asked me once if Rick Warren had to do anything. Frankly, I would hope he had a better grasp of reality, but I did not nor do not expect him to do anything. He can be as discriminatory as he wants in his religion.
But recently this page:
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509
Where it was stated (in part):

Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church – we hope they do! God’s Word has the power to change our lives.

Was evidently removed from the saddlebackfamily.com website. It now defaults to this page, on which nothing concerning homosexuality is said nor possibly linked to:
http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/home/whatwebelieve/index.html
One is led to wonder why, is Warren in some way ashamed of what his religion demands?

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:41:46 +0000

Then what?
You have shown time and time again an unwillingness to engage others when they confront you on your inconsistent reasoning. And then you whine and *sigh* when they bounce you off a subject because you have tried to derail it with your insistence to take subjects and people out of context.
Don’t you want people to take you seriously. Don’t you want to insist that all people with SSA are gay and should leave their wives and families??? Because that is allyou seem to do. And you NEVER provide documentation just whining and sighing.

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:28:41 +0000

LOL – I’m not scared Mary! 🙂

By: Mary

Mary — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:21:39 +0000

And once again – no answer from Jayhuck.
Jayhuck, what makes you scared to answer??

By: Jayhuck

Jayhuck — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:56:29 +0000

David,
Some argue that gay marriages are necessary and that treating a group of people as second-class citizens bodes ill for all Americans. Some people argue that putting in place benefits that encourage gay couples to be in stable and long-lasting relationships is actually better for society in the long run. Some argue that gay families, gay parents and the children of gay parents should not be excluded from benefits that others enjoy without question.
Why should we exclude millions of people from a group of benefits and privileges that would only serve to help them? Gay people, gay couples and gay families are never going away, so is it better for society to encourage that their relationships are stable or to make it more difficult for them to have successful relationships? Seriously David!
Gay marriages are already happening, and in some places they have been happening for many years without any noticeable harm. How much PROOF do you need David to grant a victimized and often demonized community equal rights?

By: David Blakeslee

David Blakeslee — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:04:26 +0000

Jayhuck
Polygamy is accepted in some cultures, as is man child marriage…should we treat them as givens and figure out how to accommodate them?
Easy divorce is treated as a given, traditionalists are seeking to change that as well.
Same sex marriage may be a given in some liberal democracies and some liberal states in the US…traditionalists argue that this is a change in marriage that should be reversed…for a variety of reasons; some of which include an overactive judiciary or city government bypassing the legislative and executive branches of government (certainly the case here in Oregon, in 2004; which outraged traditionalists and constitutionalists).
Do we really want Gavin Newsom determining by fiat what is a legal and social good when it comes to marriage?
Have the Social Sciences, who endorse a change in the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians, demonstrated scientifically that they understand both what makes an enduring loving marriage and how to repair a broken marriage?
Why should we grant them authority in this discussion?

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:21:16 +0000

I am calling on Jayhuck to explain why it is okay for gays to redefine marriage but an individual who has same sex attraction cannot gay (by popular definition?)
That is to read
I am calling on Jayhuck to explain why it is okay for gays to redefine marriage but an individual who has same sex attraction cannot NOT be gay (by popular definition?)

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:19:44 +0000

Either way, if a word or subject can change it’s definition over time – then the question is… Can a person change themselves in definition, too? Taking a very large group of people to redefine something, can we not also apply that to one person who chooses to define themselves differently than how another person would choose to do so?
It is not legal vs personal per se …. just the IDEA on any level that a person can redefine something in their own life. Isn’t that acceptable? If we redefine terms all the time… can we not redefine what it means to have same sex attraction vs having to be called gay? Regardless of what the current populous of our country thinks?
I am calling on Jayhuck to explain why it is okay for gays to redefine marriage but an individual who has same sex attraction cannot gay (by popular definition?) His reasoning doesn’t make sense and he seems to fit his arguments to his particular likings when it fits his opinion.
That’s all.
Thank you for the need to clarify. Did that help?

By: Eddy

Eddy — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:03:41 +0000

I do believe that a person can re-define themselves. It’s their life. It’s their definition. It ought to be one thing that can never be taken from a person. You may define them differently but you shouldn’t make them forsake their definition for yours.
I think your question puzzled me the first time you presented it…and I don’t think you directed it at me anyway…but, it first had an ‘apples and oranges’ feel to it. Legal definition vs self definition. Group consensus definition (laws take discussion and agreement between many) vs individual definition. Public domain vs personal domain.